DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/27/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/27/25, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are generally persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn. It is noted that the claimed “processor” is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since a “processor” is considered to be a hardware device. This term has support in the specification (e.g., “CPU”). The “input interface” and “output interface” are still considered to invoke 112(f). However, the specification is considered to disclose adequate structure for these terms as noted by Applicant in the arguments.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/27/25, regarding the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golightly have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Golightly fails to teach or suggest monitoring and/or controlling a state of operation of a plant based on instructions generated by a model that extracts the instructions based on a predicted customer satisfaction. In supporting this assertion, Applicant argues that Golightly only describes customer satisfaction in the context of business organization objectives, not as a constraint or input for monitoring or controlling the operational state of a manufacturing plant.
However, Examiner asserts that Golightly does use predicted customer satisfaction to control operation of the plant. For example, Fig. 6 depicts the customer relationship 602 management interacting with the manufacturing execution system 612 and local unit optimization 618. More particularly, Golightly discloses that “each level of decision may be a function of other decisions, and thus may not be separated from them if optimal performance of the enterprise is the goal” (e.g., [0115]). Further, Golightly discloses that “the plan may affect the schedule, the schedule may affect the optimal operation of multiple production units, and the operation of the units may be constrained by the available control” (e.g., [0115]).
Also, as noted in the Final rejection, Golightly discloses that “the dynamic cost model 226 may be used to generate a schedule 228 for the operation of the manufacturing plant wherein the schedule is designed according to the model 226 to accomplish the goals and objectives 222 subject to the constraints” (e.g., [0104]). These goals relate to customer satisfaction and demands (e.g., Fig. 5 #222: “Receive goals and objectives”, [0103]: “the goals may relate to the amount, quality and/or cost of the items”, “the goals and objectives may related to customer satisfaction, profitability, lowered cost, etc.”, [0115]: “goals from satisfying the customer demands”, [0116]: “goals will also flow down from the customer demands”).
Therefore, in light of the above disclosures, it can be seen that the modeled customer satisfaction of Golightly is used to generate to a schedule and in turn the “schedule may affect the optimal operation of multiple production units” (e.g., [0115]).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an input interface configured to receive expectation data” in claim 11
“an output interface configured to output the instructions” in claim 11
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golightly et al. US 2003/0046130 (“Golightly”).
Golightly discloses:
1. A computer-implemented method for monitoring and/or controlling a production plant comprising:
(a) providing expectation data related to customer expectation (e.g., Fig. 5 #222: “Receive goals and objectives”, [0103]: “the goals may relate to the amount, quality and/or cost of the items”, “the goals and objectives may related to customer satisfaction, profitability, lowered cost, etc.”, [0115]: “goals from satisfying the customer demands”, [0116]: “goals will also flow down from the customer demands”),
(b) providing plant data related to the operation of a production plant (e.g., [0085], [0094], Fig. 5 #242,244, [0106]: “as situations change inside the manufacturing plant, various types of internal input or events 244 may be generated”, “The external inputs 242 may represent various external input or events which may occur which may also operate to change the dynamic models 232 in some way”), wherein the providing plant data comprises data from sensors in the production plant (e.g., [0132]: “real-time measurements”),
(c) providing the expectation data and the plant data to a model (e.g., [0084], Fig. 5 #226: “Dynamic Cost Models”) suitable for extracting instructions (e.g., Fig. 5 #228: “Schedule”) based on a predicted customer satisfaction (e.g., [0104]: “the dynamic cost model 226 may be used to generate a schedule 228 for the operation of the manufacturing plant wherein the schedule is designed according to the model 226 to accomplish the goals and objectives 222 subject to the constraints”, As noted above, the goals relate to customer satisfaction and demands, [0136]: “predictive management system with targets aimed at various expressions of customer value”, [0139]: “predict…customer’s specification”, Fig. 7 #708), and
(d) outputting the instructions received from the model (e.g., [0095], [0104]: “generate a schedule 228 for the operation of the manufacturing plant”, [0147]: “user interface”, Fig. 7 #710), wherein the instructions are displayed on a user interface (e.g., [0147]) adapted to receive a feedback about customer satisfaction for the instructions to improve the model (e.g., [0046], [0103]: “goals and objectives may relate to customer satisfaction”, [0115], “goals from satisfying the customer demands”, [0116]: “goals will also flow down from the customer demands or from changing corporate objectives”, [0117]: “feedback or interaction, e.g., information, may flow in both directions, with constraints flowing up the chain or hierarchy of the REO architecture, and costs and/or goals flowing [downward]”, [0136], Fig. 7, It is noted that improving the model is an intended result of providing the feedback. It is not positively recited and thus does not carry patentable weight.); and (e) monitoring and/or controlling a state of operation of the production plant based on the instruction (e.g., Fig. 6, [0115]: “each level of decision may be a function of other decisions, and thus may not be separated from them if optimal performance of the enterprise is the goal”, “the plan may affect the schedule, the schedule may affect the optimal operation of multiple production units, and the operation of the units may be constrained by the available control”).
2. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein at least parts of the plant data is provided through an interface to an enterprise resource planning system (e.g., [0134]-[0135], [0140]).
3. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the model is a data-driven machine learning model (e.g., [0082], [0135]).
4. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the model is a combination of a supervised machine learning model (e.g., [0082]: “support vector machine”) and an unsupervised machine learning model (e.g., [0037]: “trained neural nets…derived from empirical data, [0135]: “evolutionary computing”).
5. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the model maximizes a weight average customer satisfaction (e.g., [0103]: “maximize production, or other types of goals and objectives”, [0103]: “the goals and objectives may related to customer satisfaction, profitability, [0025]).
6. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the model is provided with information from an ordering system (e.g., Fig. 6 #606).
8. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the expectation data is provided from at least three different sources (e.g., [0043]: “two or more independent constraints and/or objectives”, [0044]: “at least one of the information sources may comprise one of the one or more constraints and/or objectives”, [0046]).
10. A non-transitory computer readable data medium storing a computer program including instructions for executing steps of the method according to claim 1 (e.g., claims 27-29).
11. A production monitoring and/or control system for monitoring and/or controlling a production plant comprising:
(a) an input interface configured to receive expectation data related to customer expectation (e.g., Fig. 5 #222: “Receive goals and objectives”, [0103]: “the goals may relate to the amount, quality and/or cost of the items”, “the goals and objectives may related to customer satisfaction, profitability, lowered cost, etc.”, [0115]: “goals from satisfying the customer demands”, [0116]: “goals will also flow down from the customer demands”) and plant data related to the operation of a production plant (e.g., [0085], [0094], Fig. 5 #242,244, [0106]: “as situations change inside the manufacturing plant, various types of internal input or events 244 may be generated”, “The external inputs 242 may represent various external input or events which may occur which may also operate to change the dynamic models 232 in some way”), wherein the plant data comprises data from sensors in the production plant (e.g., [0132]: “real-time measurements”),
(b) a processor (e.g., [0084], Fig. 5 #226: “Dynamic Cost Models”) configured to extract instructions (e.g., Fig. 5 #228: “Schedule”) based on a predicted customer satisfaction from the expectation data and the plant data (e.g., [0104]: “the dynamic cost model 226 may be used to generate a schedule 228 for the operation of the manufacturing plant wherein the schedule is designed according to the model 226 to accomplish the goals and objectives 222 subject to the constraints”, As noted above, the goals relate to customer satisfaction and demands, [0136]: “predictive management system with targets aimed at various expressions of customer value”, [0139]: “predict…customer’s specification”, Fig. 7 #708),
(c) an output interface configured to output the instructions received from a model (e.g., [0095], [0104]: “generate a schedule 228 for the operation of the manufacturing plant”, [0147]: “user interface”, Fig. 7 #710), wherein the instructions are displayed on a user interface (e.g., [0147]) adapted to receive a feedback about customer satisfaction for the instructions to improve the model (e.g., [0046], [0103]: “goals and objectives may relate to customer satisfaction”, [0115], “goals from satisfying the customer demands”, [0116]: “goals will also flow down from the customer demands or from changing corporate objectives”, [0116]: “goals will also flow down from the customer demands or from changing corporate objectives”, [0117]: “feedback or interaction, e.g., information, may flow in both directions, with constraints flowing up the chain or hierarchy of the REO architecture, and costs and/or goals flowing [downward]”, [0136], Fig. 7, It is noted that improving the model is an intended result of providing the feedback. It is not positively recited and thus does not carry patentable weight.), and to monitor and/or control a state of operation of the production plant based on the instructions (e.g., Fig. 6, [0115]: “each level of decision may be a function of other decisions, and thus may not be separated from them if optimal performance of the enterprise is the goal”, “the plan may affect the schedule, the schedule may affect the optimal operation of multiple production units, and the operation of the units may be constrained by the available control”).
12. The production monitoring and/or control system according to claim 11, wherein the input interface comprises a user interface which allows a user to input expectation data (e.g., [0147]).
13. The production monitoring and/or control system according to claim 11, wherein the input interface has an interface to a customer feedback system (e.g., [0046], [0116]: “goals will also flow down from the customer demands or from changing corporate objectives”, [0117]: “feedback or interaction, e.g., information, may flow in both directions, with constraints flowing up the chain or hierarchy of the REO architecture, and costs and/or goals flowing [downward]”, Fig. 7).
14. The production monitoring and/or control system according to claim 11, wherein the output interface comprises a user interface which is configured to display the instructions for the plant (e.g., [0147]).
15. The production monitoring and/or control system according to claim 11, wherein the output interface comprises an interface to a system adapted to send information to the customer based on the instructions received from the model (e.g., [0096]: “at least a portion of the solution may be implementable by a human to manage the enterprise”, [0147]).
16. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising sending a signal to the production plant, wherein the signal is configured to trigger the production plant to perform an action according to the instruction (e.g., Fig. 7 #710, [0162]).
17. The production monitoring and/or control system according to claim 11, further comprising sending a signal to the production plant, wherein the signed is configured to trigger the production plant to perform an action according to the instruction (e.g., Fig. 7 #710, [0162]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
09/10/25